Introduction and core objectives
Human civilisation is standing at a crossroads.
In just a few decades, many societies – especially in the West – have rapidly torn down institutions that lasted for centuries: clear family roles, stable social hierarchies, and shared moral frameworks. The old map that once pointed people towards God-centred living has been thrown away, and a new one has not really replaced it.
One of the strongest forces behind this shift is the modern LGBTQ+ movement. Over the last twenty years, it has become a powerful cultural and political influence. At the same time, the Islamic vision of life remains what it has always been: clear in its goals, confident in its truth, and unashamed to challenge anything that distorts the fitrah.
This essay aims to uncover the main philosophical assumptions that lie beneath LGBTQ+ ideology. Our key claim is simple: this ideology is not a neutral or universal truth. It is built on specific ideas about the self, freedom, desire, and identity – ideas that can be questioned, critiqued, and rejected. People are under no intellectual or moral duty to accept these claims, especially when they clash with reason and revelation. By contrast, the Islamic worldview offers a coherent, God-centred understanding of reality that rests on a sound rational and spiritual foundation.
However, it is crucial to state something from the outset:
Even as Islam firmly rejects the upside-down moral order promoted by many progressive trends, it insists that truth must be conveyed with dignity, calm, and justice. Chaos, mob behaviour, cruelty, and self-righteous hatred have no place in our dīn.
Allah says in the Qur’an:
Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are fair.” [1]
In this verse, Allah uses verbs related to birr (righteousness) and qisṭ (fairness) towards non-Muslims. The word birr comes from a root that carries meanings like purity, loyalty, piety, fulfilling one’s promises, and showing excellence in how we treat others.[2] Here, it means being upright, respectful, and good in our dealings – as long as they do not show open hostility to Islam and the Muslims.[3]
When there is real aggression or hatred, wisdom and strategy may require firmness instead of open gentleness. Protecting the Muslim community is a moral duty, and sometimes this protection demands limits on forbearance. Even then, our actions must remain principled, not driven by ego or revenge.
The Qur’an also shows birr as kindness and obedience within the family. Prophet ʿĪsā (Jesus) said:
And [He has ordered me] to be kind to my mother. He has not made me arrogant or defiant.” [4]
In another verse, birr refers to living out righteousness, not just preaching it:
Do you preach righteousness and fail to practice it yourselves, although you read the Scripture? Do you not understand?” [5]
Taken together, these verses teach a powerful lesson:
Every human being – whatever their beliefs, identity, or background – deserves a basic level of respect and dignity. This remains true even when their ideas are being challenged or their world-view is being carefully deconstructed.
So any Islamic critique of LGBTQ+ ideology must be:
- fair,
- truthful,
- free from distortion, mockery, or cruelty.
A Muslim is called to be a mirror of divine mercy, not a megaphone of personal anger. Our aim is not to “crush” people, but to uncover the illusions that harm them and gently invite them back to the Lord who created them.
Every believer should strive to embody piety, kindness, and wisdom in these discussions. When we speak with sincerity and compassion, hearts that feel lost, confused, or hardened might begin to soften. They may start to see the beauty of submitting to Allah and living by His guidance. That kind of transformation cannot be forced and cannot grow out of hatred.
By carrying ourselves with a godly character – in conversations with Muslims and non-Muslims, supporters and opponents alike – we become ambassadors of the religion of truth. In doing so, we do not merely oppose an ideology; we call its followers to something higher: the oneness of Allah, the mercy of His Messenger ﷺ, and a life ordered around worship, not whims.
Key theories and assumptions of LGBTQ+ ideology
Every world-view stands on hidden foundations.
Behind every slogan, law, or social movement, there are basic ideas about what is true, what is good, and what it means to be human. Some of these ideas are strong and well-argued; others crumble the moment you push them.
Take secularism as an example.
At its core, it claims that “religion” and “state” must be kept apart. That claim rests on a deeper assumption: that God – or religion more broadly – cannot reliably guide the political and social life of human beings. This conclusion is shaped by a very specific history: the abuses of the medieval Church in Europe and the backlash of the Enlightenment. Those events belong to a particular Christian context; they cannot simply be copied and pasted onto the very different, rich, and nuanced tradition of Islam.
Secularism also assumes that politics and religion are two separate worlds that should never truly mix. In theory, this sounds like a peaceful balance. In reality, what has happened is very different: secularism has pushed religion out of public life and claimed the whole political space for itself. Religion is often painted as backwards and dangerous, something to be locked inside private life and kept away from law, education, and public morals. The result is a public square ruled almost entirely by this-worldly tools and desires.
This split was even helped by certain Christian readings of scripture, such as the often-quoted line:
Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”[6]
Taken in a certain way, this verse suggests that God has little to say about worldly life and power. It implies that His knowledge and guidance stop at the doors of “spirituality” and do not reach politics or society. From an Islamic perspective, this is deeply problematic: it ignores Allah’s perfect knowledge and treats His guidance as limited – an idea completely at odds with tawḥīd.
In a similar way, the modern LGBTQ+ movement also rests on a set of philosophical assumptions. It does not just say “be kind to people”; it pushes a very specific moral and sexual vision of the world. At its core, it treats same-sex acts and fluid gender identities not as moral questions, but as unquestionable “rights” and fixed identities.
Underneath that vision, there are several key claims, often assumed rather than argued:
“My body is mine alone.”
Human beings are seen as absolute owners of their bodies, free to use them in any way they choose.
“Sex and gender are purely personal choices.”
Same-sex acts and gender fluidity are framed as private lifestyle options. Every individual is said to have a basic right to adopt them, and others are expected to affirm those choices.
“There is no real moral problem here.”
Any moral objection to same-sex acts or gender fluidity is often dismissed as prejudice, ignorance, or “hate,” rather than a serious ethical position.
“Desire equals identity.”
Our sexual feelings and attractions are treated as central to who we are. Because of this, they are placed beyond moral criticism and must be respected as part of a person’s “true self.”
“Gender and sexuality are social constructs.”
Being male or female, and how we express sexuality, are seen as human inventions with no fixed nature or God-given essence.
Put together, these five ideas form the main intellectual and moral pillars of LGBTQ+ ideology. This essay will argue that each one of them can be questioned, challenged, and ultimately rejected. No Muslim – and no thinking person – is under any rational or moral obligation to simply accept these assumptions as if they were obvious facts.
It is also important to be fair: not everyone within the LGBTQ+ movement holds all of these assumptions in the same way. Different groups and activists pick and choose:
- Some stress bodily autonomy more than anything else.
- Others focus on identity and recognition
- Some lean heavily on the idea of social construction and downplay moral questions altogether.
In some cases, one argument is used while another is quietly dropped, depending on what is most convenient in that debate or cultural context.
This essay is aware of that diversity. For that reason, it does not pretend there is one single, perfectly unified LGBTQ+ philosophy. Instead, it gathers the main ideas that have been repeatedly used by different sections of the movement over the last few decades. By laying these core assumptions on the table, we can examine them one by one, and invite readers to see that they are not sacred truths, but human claims open to scrutiny – and, from an Islamic world-view, in deep need of correction.
Assumption of bodily ownership and physical autonomy
The first assumption behind much LGBTQ+ thinking is this: “My body belongs only to me.”
This usually comes from one of two backgrounds:
- Atheists and naturalists who say there is no Creator. In their view, humans are just the end result of blind physical processes and accidents in the universe. There is no God-given purpose for the body, so there are no divine limits on what you do with it. You decide your own path. As long as you do not harm anyone else, anything goes. Pro-abortion slogans like “My body, my choice” express this mindset clearly.
- Secular theists who believe in God, but live as though His existence does not create moral duties. They might say: “Yes, God exists and controls the universe, but He has left us free to do whatever we like with our bodies.” In practice, their ethics are based on secular moral theories, not on revelation.
In both cases, the conclusion is the same:
Humans are seen as self-owners, free to decide how to use their bodies without “top-down” commands from God. This includes same-sex acts, changing one’s gender identity, and undergoing so-called “gender-affirming” or sex-reassignment surgeries, so long as no one else’s rights are violated.
This line of thought is closely tied to the harm principle, popularised by the 19th-century philosopher John Stuart Mill. He argued that the only legitimate reason for society to limit an individual is to prevent harm to others. In his famous words:
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others… In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” [7]
In this view, the human being is imagined as a small “sovereign state,” ruling over his or her own body, answerable only to personal choice and the thin line of “no harm.”
Assumption of individual rights
The second assumption builds on the idea of individual rights in secular, liberal societies.
Modern Western systems are shaped by liberalism, a philosophy that puts the individual at the centre. The individual is given a wide space of personal freedom, often described as negative rights: rights that protect you from interference, rather than obligations that push you towards higher moral or spiritual goals.
- Positive rights: duties or supports that help a person grow morally or socially (for example, education that shapes character).
- Negative rights: protections that stop others – including the state, church, or even family – from limiting your choices.
Historically, the West has emphasised negative rights. The legal and philosophical tradition has focused on shielding the individual from outside control so each person can chase whatever they define as “the good life,” even if that just means pleasure and comfort.
Because of this, Western constitutions and laws give citizens a long list of personal rights. Within this framework:
- Same-sex relationships and gender fluidity are treated as legal rights.
- Once something is recognised as a right, it is often treated as automatically morally acceptable.
- People are told they have the right to love whoever they want and to shape their gender or identity, even against biological reality.
Here, the individual stands above the community. Personal preference is given more weight than family, tradition, religion, or the wider social good. The unspoken belief is that human reason and desire are enough to guide us, and that no external moral authority should restrict the private self.
In short:
The individual becomes king, and society, family, and even God are expected to step aside from their throne.
Assumption that homosexual acts are harmless
The third assumption claims that there is nothing morally harmful in same-sex acts or gender fluidity.
Some philosophers argue like this: “Show me the harm. If no one is being hurt, treated unfairly, or robbed of their rights, then there is nothing wrong.” Chris Meyers, in The Moral Defense of Homosexuality, calls this the “Simple Argument.” He says:
- Homosexual acts do not necessarily harm others.
- They do not, in themselves, violate someone’s autonomy or rights.
- They do not automatically involve injustice or exploitation.
Therefore, he concludes, homosexuality is morally permissible, and there is no reasonable basis to deny same-sex couples the rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples. [9]
Others go further and argue that homosexual practices are not just “not wrong,” but positively good because they increase happiness. Here they appeal to consequentialist theories, especially utilitarianism.
- Utilitarianism, developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, measures actions by their consequences: the right action is the one that brings about “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” [10]
- If an act increases pleasure and reduces pain overall, it is considered morally good. If it increases suffering, it is morally bad.
From this angle, LGBTQ+ advocates argue:
- Sexual freedom and self-expression increase happiness for many people.
- As long as relationships are consensual, same-sex unions and gender expression are seen as harmless or even beneficial.
- Therefore, they should be accepted and supported by law and society.
A smaller group of LGBTQ+ defenders use deontological ethics instead of utilitarianism. Deontology (from deon, “duty”) focuses on rules and duties, not consequences.
- The most famous deontologist is Immanuel Kant.
- He argued that an action is moral if it can be turned into a rule for everyone (universalised) and if it respects people as ends in themselves, not just as tools.
Some modern deontologists try to adapt this kind of reasoning to defend LGBTQ+ practices, arguing that:
- People should never be treated as “means” by having their identities denied or suppressed.
- As long as relationships are consensual and respect autonomy, they can be seen as compatible with duties of respect and dignity.
Even though Kant himself regarded homosexuality as against nature, many later thinkers have reshaped his theory to reach the opposite conclusion. What all these approaches share, however, is a human-centred view: moral value is decided by human interests, desires, or human-made duties, not by divine commands.
Assumption that desire defines identity
The fourth assumption is that sexual desire and gender feelings are central to who you are.
According to this view:
- Your attractions and gender experiences are not just things you have; they are who you are.
- To live “authentically,” you must explore, express, and affirm these desires without shame.
For many LGBTQ+ thinkers, to block someone from asserting a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender identity is seen as a form of repression that can damage their mental health and sense of self. Ellen D. B. Riggle and Sharon S. Rostosky write in A Positive View of LGBTQ:
Claiming our LGBT identities is an act of self-empowerment… living our life authentically, even though it may feel risky at times, facilitates personal growth.” [13]
So the message is:
If society, religion, or family tells you to hide or deny these desires, they are suppressing your “true self.” Real freedom is framed as the ability to design your own identity from the inside out.
This idea links to a wider liberal concern about conformity. John Stuart Mill warned against letting society choose your “plan of life” for you. He said that a person who simply imitates others becomes like a machine, while a person who chooses his own path grows like a living tree, developing from within. [14]
In this picture, traditional moral limits on sexuality are seen as chains placed around the tree of the self, stopping it from growing in all directions. The highest good becomes “being true to yourself,” where “self” is defined largely by inner desires and feelings.
Assumption that sexuality and gender are mere social constructs
The fifth assumption – pushed strongly by queer theory – is that sexuality and gender are mainly, or entirely, social constructs.
According to many queer theorists:
- Being “male” or “female,” “straight” or “gay” is not fixed by biology or divine design.
- These categories are built and enforced by society through language, culture, and power.
- Therefore, they can be deconstructed, blurred, or reinvented.
Queer theory grew out of postmodernism, a school of thought deeply sceptical of claims to objective truth. Thinkers like Michel Foucault argued that:
- What we call “reality” is heavily shaped by social forces and discourses.
- Ideas about sex and gender are not neutral truths, but tools of power used by elites to organise and control society.
From this view:
- Traditional binaries like male/female and heterosexual/homosexual are not sacred truths; they are social tools.
- These tools give legitimacy and privilege to some groups while marginalising others.
- Language itself becomes a weapon: it shapes who is seen as “normal” and who is erased or labelled deviant.
Other postmodern thinkers, such as Jacques Derrida, suggested that language never simply mirrors reality; it creates and reinforces hierarchies. Terms like “male/female,” “rational/emotional,” or “public/private” help maintain power structures that favour one side of the pair.
Building on this, queer theorists argue:
- Gender and sexuality are “performed” through repeated actions, roles, and phrases.
- As Judith Butler famously wrote, there is no fixed “gender identity” behind our expressions; gender is made by those very expressions. [15]
- Rituals and scripts – like a priest saying, “I now pronounce you man and wife” – help lock people into certain roles, giving them a sense of inevitability.
Because of this, many LGBTQ+ activists deliberately:
- Challenge language (pronouns, labels, categories).
- Disrupt social norms and hierarchies.
- “Perform” new gender identities to break the old scripts.
Their goal is to free people from what they see as oppressive, man-made constructions and open space for “alternative” ways of being.
Several other thinkers helped prepare the ground for these ideas:
- Simone de Beauvoir famously wrote, “One is not born, but rather becomes, [a] woman,” highlighting how socialisation shapes gender roles. [16]
- Gayle Rubin criticised the traditional family as a structure that often benefits heterosexual men while limiting women’s roles, especially in the private sphere.
The Islamic perspective, and indeed many mainstream academics, take a middle path:
- Biology matters; we are not blank slates.
- But environment, upbringing, and culture also affect how we express our identities.
Queer theory, by giving almost all power to social construction and inner choice, swings to an extreme: it treats gender and sexuality as endlessly fluid, detached from any stable nature or divine purpose. It turns the self into its own creator – writing, erasing, and rewriting identity with every new word and performance.
This whole section has laid out the key assumptions, not to endorse them, but to make them visible. Once the foundations are exposed, they can be examined, questioned, and – where they clash with sound reason and revelation – firmly rejected.
The Islamic response: a relative, not universal, claim
Many LGBTQ+ activists present their beliefs as if they are universal truths: beyond question, beyond discussion, and binding on everyone. But as we have already seen, their world-view rests on a set of assumptions – about the body, rights, harm, identity, and gender – that are neither self-evident nor neutral.
These ideas need arguments. They are not obvious facts of nature. Because of that, Muslims – and all human beings – are under no intellectual or moral duty to believe in, promote, or celebrate LGBTQ+ ideology.
The very existence of alternative worldviews, like Islam, shows that these assumptions can be challenged. Simply declaring, “This is the truth, and only bigots disagree,” is not an argument. It is a kind of intellectual arrogance. And in many Western countries, the way “gender fluidity” and LGBTQ+ norms have been pushed through schools, media, and law is nothing short of ideological dominance.
Islam does not accept any of the five key LGBTQ+ assumptions. It offers its own rich, God-centred account of morality and human nature, grounded in a Lord who is All-Knowing, All-Wise, and completely Merciful. He has sent guidance for our good in this life and the next.
What follows is a brief Islamic response to each of those assumptions.
Bodily ownership and autonomy: who owns you?
LGBTQ+ arguments often start here:
“I own my body, so I can do whatever I want with it, as long as I don’t harm anyone else.”
Islam turns that claim upside down.
Your body is not your ultimate property. It is a trust from Allah. He created your hearing, sight, mind, and every cell in your body:
He is the One Who created for you hearing, sight, and intellect… He gives life and causes death, and to Him belongs the alternation of the day and night.” [17]
Then Allah reminds us of His ownership in powerful questions:
Say, ‘To whom belongs the earth and whoever is in it, if you know?’ They will say, ‘To Allah.’ Say, ‘Will you not then remember?’” [18]
If everything belongs to Him, then our bodies are His property, not ours. We are caretakers, not owners. We will be questioned about how we used this trust.
Islam still recognises that humans have free will. You can obey or disobey. You have agency. But this freedom is not a blank cheque; it comes with responsibility. Allah’s commands are not random rules. They flow from His perfect names and attributes: He is All-Knowing, All-Wise, Most Merciful, Most Loving.
So when He tells us how to use our bodies – including our sexual organs – His guidance is:
- for our benefit,
- for our dignity,
- for our success in both worlds.
We are not “sovereigns” over our bodies; we are servants of the One who designed us.
Individual rights: who decides what we deserve?
Many LGBTQ+ arguments lean on the language of individual rights:
“If I have the right to be myself and control my body, then I have the right to choose my sexuality and gender.”
Islam does not deny that people have rights. Our tradition speaks about ḥuqūq al-ʿibād (the rights of God’s servants) and ḥuqūq Allāh (the rights of Allah). But the liberal idea of rights is very different from the Islamic one.
Liberalism treats the human being as an isolated individual, detached from:
- family,
- community,
- tradition,
- and ultimately, from God.
It elevates the individual to the highest position and often treats their personal desires as sacred. These rights are then claimed to be natural and universal, even though many cultures reject this framework.
Islam challenges this on several levels:
- Human beings are limited: our knowledge, wisdom, and motives are mixed with ignorance and desire. We are not qualified to invent absolute moral rights.
- Only Allah has perfect knowledge of what truly benefits us and harms us, now and in the future.
He is al-Barr (The Source of Good), al-Raḥmān (The Most Merciful), al-Wadūd (The Most Loving), al-ʿAlīm (The All-Knowing), al-Ḥakīm (The All-Wise). His commands come from this perfect nature:
Allah never commands what is shameful. How can you attribute to Allah what you do not know?” [19]
So in Islam, ultimate rights and wrongs are not created by human opinion. They are given by the One who knows us better than we know ourselves. Human-made systems can recognise some truths, but they can never replace divine guidance.
“No harm” and secular ethics: what makes something wrong?
A common LGBTQ+ claim is:
“Same-sex acts and gender transitions don’t harm anyone, so they are morally fine.”
Behind this are ethical systems like utilitarianism (“the greatest happiness for the greatest number”) and modern forms of deontological ethics (“follow duties we discover by reason”). These theories are human attempts to define good and evil without God.
Islam offers a different foundation called divine command theory in a rich, theistic sense. In simple terms:
- What Allah commands is truly good.
- What He forbids is truly bad.
This does not mean His commands are random. They flow from His perfect nature. He is not following a standard outside Himself, nor is He commanding without wisdom. His knowledge is complete, while ours is fragile and partial.
So, for Islam, the “wrong-making feature” in homosexual acts and gender fluidity is not only in their worldly consequences but in the fact that they oppose the commands of the One who knows all consequences, in this life and the next.
Secular ethics also have serious problems:
- Utilitarianism only looks at pleasure and pain in this world. It ignores the Hereafter. It reduces humans to pleasure-seeking calculators.
- Human-centred deontology claims that human reason alone can generate universal duties, but who decides which duties? Which culture? Which philosopher?
Islam says:
It is rational to ground our morality in Allah, not in limited human minds. He sees what we do not see. He knows what we cannot know.
Some atheists raise Euthyphro’s dilemma:
“Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it’s good?”
Islam answers with a third option:
- Actions are good because Allah commands them,
- and He commands them because they are in line with His wise and perfect nature.
His commands are neither arbitrary nor independent from Him. They express who He is. A useful image:
Allah’s commands are like a perfectly designed key. They are shaped to unlock human flourishing and solve the problems of individuals and societies. To say His commands are random is like claiming a finely crafted key that fits its lock was made by accident.
Identity: are you your desires?
LGBTQ+ ideology often teaches that your sexual desires and gender feelings are central to your identity. To question them is seen as attacking your very self.
Islam disagrees at the deepest level.
Even if we accept, for argument’s sake, that some desires are hard to change, it does not follow that they define who you are. In the Islamic worldview, the core of your identity is that you are:
- ʿabd Allāh – a servant of Allah,
- created to know, love, and worship Him.
The Qur’an describes Islam as Allah’s “colour”:
This is the colour (ṣibghah) of Allah, and who is better than Allah in giving colour? And we worship none but Him.” [22]
- Fiṭrah is your original nature: born inclined to recognise and worship Allah. [23]
- Ṣibghah is like the dye that colours your life when you live by His commands – it beautifies your character, just as a rich colour beautifies a cloth. [24]
If someone lets their desires rule them, they drift away from this natural path. Their fiṭrah becomes stained and dim.
Allah warns:
If they do not respond to you [O Muhammad], then know that they only follow their desires. And who is more astray than one who follows his desire without guidance from Allah?” [26]
LGBTQ+ ideology invites people to bow to their desires, to build their identity around them, and to protect them from any moral criticism. Islam calls us to something higher: to master our desires, not be mastered by them.
Desires exist, but they are not kings. They are meant to be guided, tamed, and expressed only within the limits Allah has set. That is where true honour lies.
Are sex and gender just social games?
Queer theory and some parts of the LGBTQ+ movement claim that sex and gender are mainly social constructs.
According to this view:
- Biology doesn’t matter;
- Language and society “create” categories like male/female and straight/gay;
- We are free to rewrite these categories however we wish.
Islam again takes a middle path:
- We accept clear biological realities.
- We recognise that upbringing and environment do influence personality and behaviour.
The Qur’an affirms the male-female distinction: “And the male is not like the female.” [27]
This is not a statement of superiority or inferiority. It is an affirmation of real difference. The Qur’an also teaches that language connects to reality:
And He taught Adam the names of all things.” [28]
Classical scholars explained that Allah taught Adam the true nature, properties, and names of things. [29] Language in the Islamic view is not just a tool of oppression; it is a gift that helps us recognise how Allah created the world.
Modern research backs up what revelation teaches: there are real biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women. To pretend they do not exist can lead to confusion and absurdity.
If identity is purely self-declared, then in theory:
- a human can claim to be a cat,
- a white man can claim to be a black lesbian,
and everyone is socially pressured to affirm this, even while their mind screams that something is off. We instinctively know biology cannot just be erased by words.
There is also a deep contradiction in some postmodern and queer thinking:
- On one hand, they say there is no objective truth or stable morality – only shifting perspectives and power.
- On the other hand, they make strong moral claims about “oppression,” “harm,” and “injustice.”
But if there are no objective values, how can oppression truly exist? If everything is just a social construct, then even their own complaints about injustice become just another set of subjective preferences.
Islam, by contrast, is rooted in an objective moral order revealed by the One who made us.
Islamic response to common LGBTQ+ objections
“Don’t force your views on us”
When their ideas are questioned, many supporters say:
“Stop imposing your views on others.”
Yet for years, LGBTQ+ norms – especially around transgender issues – have been pushed into:
- school curricula,
- media content,
- workplace policies,
- and even medical guidelines for children.
If no one should “impose”, then such activists must also stop imposing their worldview on children by normalising drastic interventions like puberty blockers and surgeries that permanently alter healthy bodies.
From an Islamic perspective, these practices are not “affirmation”; they are a tragic misuse of medicine and a betrayal of vulnerable people.
However, our critique must never turn into cruelty. Muslims must see those who struggle with gender dysphoria or same-sex desires as human beings in pain, not enemies to be mocked.
Our duty is to:
- warn them with compassion,
- invite them to Allah,
- remind them that He is the best of designers and that He did not make a mistake when He created them.
True liberation is not found in rewriting our bodies but in aligning our hearts with the One who fashioned them.
“Love is love”
“Love is love” is a popular slogan, but as an argument, it collapses quickly. If we treat it as a universal rule, we could also say:
- “Water is water” – so it makes no difference whether you drink from a clean spring or a filthy toilet.
- “Sex is sex” – which would make deeply immoral acts, like necrophilia, just another form of sex.
We instinctively reject these conclusions. So clearly, not all “love” is morally equal. Love needs guidance. It must be weighed against a higher standard of right and wrong.
The slogan also tries to paint anyone who disagrees as cold or hateful. Islam rejects that too.
The Prophet ﷺ taught:
Love for humanity what you love for yourself.” [30]
None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.” [31–32]
Muslims want good for all people. We want them to be safe, dignified, and guided. But loving people does not mean approving every action or desire.
- We can love someone and still oppose their disbelief, alcohol use, or sexual sin.
- Likewise, we can wish the best for LGBTQ+ individuals while rejecting the practices and ideology.
Approving self-destruction is not compassion. True mercy is to call people away from what harms them, toward what will save them in this life and the next.
LGBTQ+ or Islam? Two competing worlds
It should now be clear that Islam and LGBTQ+ ideology rest on different foundations:
- different views of God,
- different views of the human being,
- different views of morality and rights.
The real question is not “Can we blend them?” but:
Which world-view is true?
To challenge the Islamic stance on LGBTQ+ matters, one must challenge Islam’s core claims: that Allah exists, that He is one, and that He revealed the Qur’an as guidance. These questions go deeper than sexuality; they are about the very meaning of life.
For Muslims doing daʿwah, this is a key strategy:
- Don’t get lost in endless debates about secondary issues.
- Bring the discussion back to God, revelation, and the purpose of life.
If Allah exists, is one, and has spoken in the Qur’an, then His judgment on same-sex acts and gender is decisive. He is the ultimate moral authority, not public opinion.
Of course, standing by this truth will sometimes lead to:
- name-calling,
- cancelling,
- and accusations of “hate”.
But our aim is not to win popularity contests. It is to be loyal to Allah and honest with His creation.
Conclusion: calling with wisdom and mercy
This essay has:
- unpacked the main assumptions behind LGBTQ+ ideology,
- shown that they are not universal or self-evident,
- and outlined the Islamic response rooted in divine command and human fitrah.
Because their world-view rests on contestable assumptions, LGBTQ+ advocates have no right to present it as the one unquestionable truth or to force it onto others through law, education, and social pressure.
Islam offers a coherent, God-centred alternative. It does not merely say “no”; it explains why and offers a higher vision of what it means to be human.
Our job as Muslims is not only to criticise but to call – with wisdom, clarity, and compassion. Allah says:
Invite to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and good advice, and argue with them in the best manner.” [34]
This verse teaches us two key qualities:
- Ḥikmah (wisdom): knowing how to present the truth at the right time, in the right way, for a God-centred goal.
- Mawʿiẓah ḥasanah (good, gentle counsel): speaking to hearts with empathy and powerful reminders, not just cold logic or harsh words.
We must first live these qualities ourselves – honesty, purity, humility, mercy – and then reflect them when we speak. That way, even those who disagree with us will at least feel that we care about them.
If Muslims carry this responsibility seriously, by Allah’s permission, hollow ideologies will fade, and more people will discover the beauty of a world that remembers its Creator and walks in His light.
Source: Islam21c
Notes
[1] al-Mumtaḥanah, 8.
[2] Abū al-Baqāʾ Ayyūb ibn Mūsā al-Kafawī, al-Kulliyyāt, eds. ʿAdnān Darwīsh and
Muḥammad al-Miṣrī (Beirut: Muʾassassah al-Risālah, 1998), p. 231.
[3] Abū al-Fidāʾ Ismāʿīl ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-ʿAẓīm, ed. Sāmī ibn Muḥammad
al-Sallāmah (Riyadh: Dār Ṭaybah, 1999), vol. 8, p. 90.
[4] Maryam, 32.
[5] al-Baqarah, 44.
[6] Matthew, 22:21; cf. Mark 12:17; Luke, 20:25. An example of a relevant commentary
can be found in Matthew Henry Bible Commentary: “No offence was given. It was much
to the honour of Christ and his doctrine, that he did not interpose as a Judge or a
Divider in matters of this nature, but left them as he found them, for his kingdom is not
of this world; and in this he hath given an example to his ministers, who deal in sacred
things, not to meddle with disputes about things secular, not to wade far into
controversies relating to them, but to leave that to those whose proper business it is.
Ministers that would mind their business, and please their master, must not entangle
themselves in the affairs of this life: they forfeit the guidance of God’s Spirit, and the
convoy of his providence when they thus to out of their way.” Available at:
https://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary/matthew-henry-complete/matthew/22. Accessed 28 Jan 2024.
[7] John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (London: John W. Parker and Son, 1859), p. 22.
[8] The distinction between positive and negative liberty was popularised by the
contemporary philosopher Isaiah Berlin in his lectures and writings, particularly his
essay “Two Concepts of Liberty”. The latter can be found and read in Isaiah Berlin, Four
Essays on Liberty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. 118-172.
[9] Chris Meyers, The Moral Defense of Homosexuality: Why Every Argument Against
Gay Rights Fails (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015) p. 198.
[10] Jeremy Bentham, A Fragment on Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998), p. 3.
[11] Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2009), p. 77.
[12] Joshua D. Greene, “The Secret Joke of Kant’s Soul,” in Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
(ed.), The Neuroscience of Morality: Emotion, Brain Disorders, and Development
(Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2008), p. 66.
[13] Ellen D. B. Riggle and Sharon S. Rostosky, A Positive View of LGBTQ: Embracing
Identity and Cultivating Well-Being(Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2012), p.
21.
[14] Mill, On Liberty, pp. 106-107.
[15] Judith Pamela Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity
(New York: Routledge, 1990), p. 25.
[16] Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, trans. Constance Borde and Sheila
Malovany-Chevallier (New York: Vintage Books, 2011), p. 283.
[17] al-Muʾminūn, 78-80.
[18] al-Muʾminūn, 84-89.
[19] al-Aʿrāf, 28.
[20] Initially expressed by Socrates, the original formulation of the dilemma is the
following: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is
loved by the gods?” See Plato, Euthyphro, in The Trial and Death of Socrates, trans. G.
M. A. Grube (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983), p. 12.
[21] Shāh Walī Allāh al-Dihlawī, Ḥujjat Allāh al-Bālighah, ed. Saʿīd Aḥmad Pālanpūrī
(Beirut: Dār Ibn Kathīr, 2012), pp. 49-51.
[22] al-Baqarah, 138.
[23] Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Juzayy al-Kalbī, al-Tashīl li ʿUlūm al-Tanzīl (Beirut: Dār
al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1995), vol. 2, pp. 167-168.
[24] Abū ʿAbdillāh Muḥammad al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʿ li Aḥkām al-Qur’ān (Beirut:
Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 2006), vol. 2, pp. 420-421.
[25] al-Rūm, 30.
[26] al-Qaṣaṣ, 50.
[27] Āl ʿImrān, 36.
[28] al-Baqarah, 31.
[29] al-Bayḍāwī, The Lights of Revelation & the Secrets of Interpretation. Ḥizb 1. Arabic
edition & English translation with introduction & notes by Gibril Fouad Haddad. 2016.
Beacon Books and Media Ltd, p. 524.
[30] Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad al-Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (Beirut: Muʾassasah
al-Risālah, 1999), vol. 27, p. 217; Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī, al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr
(Hyderabad, Dāʾirah al-Maʿārif al-ʿUthmāniyyah, 1941), vol. 2, p. 49. This hadith was
classed as ḥasan li-ghayrih(good due to corroborating evidence) by Shuʿayb al-Arnāʾūṭ
and Ibrāhīm al-Zaybaq.
[31] Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Beirut: Dār Ibn Kathīr, 2002),
pp. 13-14; Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj al-Naysābūrī, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (Riyadh: Dār Ṭaybah, 2006),
p. 40.
[32] Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Bakrī al-Ṣadīqī ibn ʿAllān, Dalīl al-Fāliḥīn li Ṭuruq Riyāḍ
al-Ṣāliḥīn (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 2018), vol. 2, p. 18.
[33] For a good introduction to the veracity of the Islamic faith see: Tzortzis, Hamza
(2020). The Divine Reality: God, Islam & The Mirage of Atheism. Sapience Institute.
Available at: http://sapienceinstitute.org/the-divine-reality/.
[34] al-Naḥl, 125.
